Military Review

Lunokhod-1 - the first successful lunar rover

75
Lunokhod-1 was the first successful rover, designed to explore other worlds. He was brought to the surface of the moon 17 on November 1970 of the year aboard the Luna-17 landing module. It was managed by remote control operators in the Soviet Union, it covered more than 10 kilometers (6 miles) in almost 10 months of its work. For comparison, the Mars Opportunity took about six years to achieve the same performance.


Lunokhod-1 - the first successful lunar rover


Participants of the space race

In the 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union were involved in a “space race,” and each side sought first to send a man to the moon, which was a way to demonstrate to the world its technological capabilities. As a result, each side managed to do something first - the first man was launched into space (the Soviet Union), the first launches of two and three people were launched into space (the United States), the first docking in orbit (the United States) was carried out, and finally , landing the first crew on the moon (United States).

The Soviet Union pinned its hopes on sending a man to the moon with probe missiles. However, after a series of unsuccessful test launches, including an explosion on the launch site in 1968, with human casualties, the Soviet Union instead focused its attention on other lunar programs. Among them was the automatic landing program of the spacecraft on the lunar surface and remote control of the rover.

Here is the list of successes of the lunar program of the Soviets: Luna-3 (with its help, the image of the far side of the moon was obtained), Luna-9 (this device made a soft landing for the first time in 1966, that is, three years before the Apollo-11 flight and the landing of astronauts to the moon), as well as Luna-16 (this unit returned to Earth with samples of lunar soil in 1970 year). And Luna-17 delivered a remote-controlled rover to the moon.

Landing and descent apparatus on the surface of the moon

The Luna-17 unit successfully launched on 10 on November 1970 of the year, and five days later it was in the orbit of the Moon. After a soft landing in the Sea of ​​Rains, aboard the Lunokhod-1 on the ramp descended to the lunar surface.

“Lunakhod-1 is a lunar planetary rover, it resembles a barrel with a convex lid in shape, and it moves with the help of eight wheels independent from each other,” was noted in a brief message from NASA about this flight. “The lunar rover is equipped with a conical antenna, a precisely pointed cylindrical antenna, four television cameras, as well as a special device to influence the lunar surface in order to study the density of the lunar soil and conduct mechanical tests.”

This planetary rover worked on a solar panel, and in the cold night time its operation was provided by a heater operating on the radioactive isotope polonium-210. At this point, the temperature dropped to minus 150 degrees Celsius (238 degrees Fahrenheit). The moon is always facing one side towards the Earth, and therefore the light day at most points on its surface lasts about two weeks. Night time also lasts two weeks. According to the plan, this rover was to work for three lunar days. He surpassed the initial operational plans and worked 11 lunar days - his work ended on October 4 1971 of the year, that is, after 14 years after the first satellite of the Soviet Union was put into near-earth orbit.

According to NASA, by the end of his mission, the Lunokhod-1 had covered approximately 10,54 kilometers (6,5 miles), he had transmitted thousands of television images and 20 television panoramas to Earth 200. In addition, more than 500 lunar soil research was conducted with it.

Lunokhod's Legacy-1

The success of the Lunokhod-1 was repeated by the Lunokhod-2 in 1973, and the second vehicle had already traveled approximately 37 kilometers (22,9 miles) on the lunar surface. The Opportunity rover took 10 years to show the same result on Mars. The image of the Lunar-1 landing site was obtained using a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter lunar space probe with a high-resolution camera on board. For example, on the pictures taken in 2012, the descent vehicle, the Lunokhod itself and its trace on the surface of the Moon are clearly visible.

The retroreflector of this rover made a very surprising “leap” in 2010, when scientists sent a laser signal to it, which indicates that it was not damaged by lunar dust or other elements.

Lasers are used to measure the exact distance from the Earth to the Moon, and for this purpose lasers were used in the framework of the Apollo program.

After the Lunokhod-2, no other device made a soft landing until the Chinese, as part of their space program, launched the Chang'e-3 device with the Lynuhod, Yuytu. Although Yuuta stopped moving after the second moonlit night, it continued to remain in working condition and stopped functioning only after 31 a month after the start of its mission, and thus it far surpassed the previous record.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.space.com/35090-lunokhod-1.html
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bureaucrat
    Bureaucrat 24 December 2016 06: 33 New
    +9
    The first launches of two and three people into space were made (United States)

    Well, here the lady (author) was a little disingenuous. And about going out into outer space, she preferred to keep silent altogether.
    1. avg-mgn
      avg-mgn 24 December 2016 07: 35 New
      10
      that the Americans were the first to perform a multi-seat flight, she is right. Our "Sunrise -1" was a bit late and flew in October 64-g. As for the history of space, the Americans sincerely believe that their astronauts were the first always and everywhere (even despite the abundance of their own materials, saying the opposite).
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 30 December 2016 07: 04 New
        +1
        Quote: avg-mgn
        As for the history of space, the Americans sincerely believe that their cosmonauts were the first always and everywhere (even despite the abundance of their own materials, saying the opposite).

        Lie like that fellow
        www.manonmoon.ru wink
  2. cap
    cap 24 December 2016 07: 36 New
    +3
    Although Yutu stopped moving after the second moonlit night, it continued to be in working condition and stopped functioning only 31 months after the start of its mission, and thus far exceeded the previous record.


    He stood and worked, far surpassed Permanent Sentinel laughing
  3. Comrade Stalin
    Comrade Stalin 24 December 2016 08: 40 New
    +5
    . By the way, the Americans, as always, kept silent that the first satellite put into the orbit of the USSR, and the Soviet astronaut also made the first manned spacecraft.
    1. Duisenbay Bankankulov
      Duisenbay Bankankulov 24 December 2016 09: 53 New
      +1
      You're wrong! After all, the first satellite was visible and listened to by many on the radio, though the radio was not in everyone in the Union ...
  4. sabakina
    sabakina 24 December 2016 10: 38 New
    +4
    and finally the landing of the first crew on the moon (United States)

    Author, did you come up with this yourself or did the Americans prompt you?
  5. Old26
    Old26 24 December 2016 11: 07 New
    +9
    Quote: sabakina
    and finally the landing of the first crew on the moon (United States)

    Author, did you come up with this yourself or did the Americans prompt you?

    Perhaps once again it’s enough to embroider conspiracy theological versions of Mukhin? Are we getting sad from the Americans? Received. Where did he come from? Where did the corner reflectors on the moon come from, in places where American machine guns did not land? The easiest and most convenient way to stick to the version of Mukhin, even if it is contrary to reality

    Quote: Comrade_Stalin
    . By the way, the Americans, as always, kept silent that the first satellite put into the orbit of the USSR, and the Soviet astronaut also made the first manned spacecraft.

    They, like us, try to keep silent about our failures and always talk about victories. The space race went nostril to nostril. And sometimes days or weeks decided who would be the first. The article is, of course, far from perfect. What is the phrase that we were going to make a manned flight on the Probe rocket. There was no such rocket. There were only ships. Well, the very fact of the machine on the moon - here is not to add or diminish. Although ours, too, sometimes hide that the "Lunokhod" that first landed on the moon was the third in a row. Two previous ones died as a result of media accidents. But this does not detract from the achievements of the USSR. As in principle, the United States has quite significant achievements in space.
    1. Comrade Stalin
      Comrade Stalin 24 December 2016 11: 26 New
      +5
      Quote: Old26
      The space race went nostril to nostril. And sometimes days or weeks decided who would be the first

      Oh yes, days and weeks :))). Actually, the USA launched the first satellite on February 1, 1958, and ours - on October 4, 1957. The difference of three months is yes, in your opinion, "the difference is only days." And the Americans launched the first man into space on February 20, 1962, more than 10 months later than the USSR. And this, of course, in your opinion, is also "the difference is only for days." And do not remember about Alan Shepard, who merely took off and immediately went down without having made a revolution around the Earth.
      Perhaps once again it’s enough to embroider conspiracy theological versions of Mukhin?

      Therefore, Americans have not been able to fly to the moon for more than 40 years, although technology has stepped far forward during this time? Why do they not fly to the moon at least once every 10 years to develop flights and maintain their reputation? After all, even in the USA themselves there are a lot of skeptics.
      1. looker-on
        looker-on 27 December 2016 18: 03 New
        0
        Because it’s insanely expensive to even detail on a neighboring continent. And on the moon, space-expensive
    2. Glory1974
      Glory1974 24 December 2016 16: 18 New
      +6
      Soil we got 0,3 grams, even to investigate it is problematic. And the rest is in the amount of 200 kg. NASA workers accidentally kicked out.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 25 December 2016 06: 01 New
        +1
        Quote: glory1974
        Soil we got 0,3 grams, even to investigate it is problematic. And the rest is in the amount of 200 kg. NASA workers accidentally kicked out.

        Not tired of repeating nonsense? smile And what about the lunar soil, it is quite quietly stored in a storage of lunar soil, located on the territory of the Space Center. Johnson in Houston.
        http://avivas.ru/topic/kak_i_gde_hranitsya_lunnii
        _grunt_v_amerike.html
        Article with pictures, for especially "gifted" wink !
        1. shamil
          shamil 25 December 2016 19: 09 New
          +4
          There is no prophet in his own country! I suggest reading Phil Kutz, he explored the last attempts of NASA still fly to the moon. From one of his articles: “NASA released a seven-minute international award-winning video clip in which a NASA specialist acknowledges that astronauts cannot safely cross Van Alen's belts [Trial By Fire, 2014]. About a three-minute mark, he says:
          03:00: “As we move farther away from the Earth, we will cross the Van Alen belts, an area of ​​hazardous radiation.”
          03:11: “Such radiation may interfere with the operation of the control system, on-board computers and other electronics on board Orion.”
          03:18: “Naturally, we must go through this danger zone twice: there and back.”
          03:26: “But Orion has a defense. Shielding will be tested when the spacecraft crosses radiation waves. Sensors on board will record radiation levels for scientists. ”
          03:36: “We must solve these problems before we send a person through this area of ​​outer space.”
          But wait, weren’t all these problems definitely resolved when NASA sent astronauts many times through this area of ​​space more than 45 years ago? "
        2. Glory1974
          Glory1974 26 December 2016 11: 32 New
          +2
          Thanks for the link. I looked with pleasure. Unfortunately this suspicion does not do less. In addition to the ground, there are questions to which NASA does not answer. In general, you can argue long and hard.
        3. Blackmonk
          Blackmonk 18 February 2017 17: 09 New
          +1
          Rocket Union: we have 364 successful launches against 47 partially or completely unsuccessful. Take these statistics as a basis. We get the probability of a successful launch (action) of 0.885.

          Flight to the Moon and successful return require consistent complete success in a number of operations:
          - access to the Earth’s orbit.
          - acceleration to the moon.
          - access to the orbit of the moon (braking).
          - Landing on the moon.
          - Take off from the moon.
          -Docking.
          - Acceleration to Earth.
          - Landing.

          Total 8 actions (in reality - more). Each action is extremely risky (there is no experience at that time). We will be extremely optimistic and assign to each step the probability of success at 0.9 (estimated, of course). No, let's give a head start and increase to 0.95.

          Estimated success probability of one mission: (0.95) ^ 8 ~ 0.66

          Probability of success for five consecutive missions: 0.66 ^ 5 ~ 0.12 (12%).

          If, instead of 0.95, we substitute 0.9 (in my opinion, closer to reality, but still very optimistic):
          (0.9 ^ 8) ^ 5 we have only 0.014 (1.4%).

          At 0.99 reliability at each stage (this, as declared, was achieved or almost achieved by the Shuttle program after 20 years of trial, error and refinement), 5 lunar missions will take place with a probability of ~ 0.67.

          The value of 0.99 in the case of the Shuttle program includes two disasters. In reality, there could be more setbacks (not catastrophes). So, a completely modern Arian-5 rocket gives 86/90 ~ 0.96 probability of a successful launch.
    3. tolancop
      tolancop 30 December 2016 01: 11 New
      +5
      "... Maybe it’s enough to once again conspire Mukhin’s conspiracy theories? Did we get a grudge from the Americans? We got it. Where did it come from? Where are the corner reflectors on the moon in places where American machine guns didn’t land? It’s easiest and most convenient to stick to Mukhin’s version, even if she’s contrary to reality ... "
      You criticize Mukhina with enthusiasm, but it seems that reading his materials did not come down as necessary. He also wrote about corner reflectors about where the "lunar" soil came from. By the way, Mukhin wrote VERY MUCH about the ground. "..I did not read, but I condemn !! .." ???
      1. Uralsky
        Uralsky 30 March 2017 22: 14 New
        0
        Quote: tolancop
        Mukhin wrote VERY MUCH

        if in this "a lot" there was at least a drop of reason ..
  6. Dekabrist
    Dekabrist 24 December 2016 12: 00 New
    +4
    The level of writing an article for children is some. Is it a trend or an accident?
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 24 December 2016 13: 54 New
      +4
      This is a translation of an American article written for an American reader. I immediately tensed up, as I saw the conversion of metric measures to miles, and as I read to the end - so immediately everything became clear. And why such articles on VO? The translation style is also not very different from the Googl translator.
      1. Dekabrist
        Dekabrist 24 December 2016 15: 14 New
        +3
        Is there really nobody on the site to write with dignity about such an interesting fact that we are printing the opus of this mother hen? It’s sad.
  7. Old26
    Old26 24 December 2016 12: 37 New
    +4
    Quote: Comrade_Stalin
    Oh yes, days and weeks :))). Actually, the USA launched the first satellite on February 1, 1958, and ours - on October 4, 1957. The difference of three months is yes, in your opinion, "the difference is only days." And the Americans launched the first man into space on February 20, 1962, more than 10 months later than the USSR. And this, of course, in your opinion, is also "the difference is only for days." And do not remember about Alan Shepard, who merely took off and immediately went down without having made a revolution around the Earth.

    You take a specific launch and say that the Americans were separated from us not by days and weeks, but by months? Not quite correct comparison. In fact, we went head to head and the difference sometimes was really in days and weeks, not months or several months.
    Launches of unmanned options again went nostril into the nostril. Our first unmanned "Vostok-1 ser No. 1 was launched on July 28, 1960, their" Mercury MA-1 - on July 28, 1960. Our East-1 No. 3 and East-1 No. 4 - respectively December 1 and 22, 1960 - December 19.
    The launch of our manned Vostok with Yuri Alekseevich - April 12, their Mercury Redstone-3 (Freedom-7) with Alan Shepard - May 5, 1961. As you can see, the terms are small. And at times we relied on priority. Americans also tried to get priority in something. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes not.
    for example, the world's first docking took place on March 16, 1966 (the ship "Jameni-8" and the step "Agen"). We have a full-fledged docking on 1.1.1969 on Soyuz-4 and Soyuz-5; the Cosmos-186 (Soyuz No. 6) and Cosmos-188 (Soyuz No. 7) automatic machines performed only a rigid mechanical grip, full There was no docking, although we all (including the Americans) consider this the first automatic docking.
    There were many different things. You say that the difference between our first satellites was almost 4 months. Yes. I agree. True failure prevented the Americans from launching their first satellite on December 6th. But that is not the point. Our really was the first.
    But in 1958, 28 launches were carried out. 23 American and 5 Soviet. Of these, 8 are successful (1 Soviet and 7 American). So it’s not so simple to say that we have always and in everything been “ahead of the rest”.

    For example, do you know that the emergency situation with the Proton carrier prevented us from launching a ship with a crew around the moon? While we sorted out the malfunction, the start window closed and Apollo 8 was the first to fly around the moon. And that was ....

    Quote: Comrade_Stalin
    Therefore, Americans have not been able to fly to the moon for more than 40 years, although technology has stepped far forward during this time? Why do they not fly to the moon at least once every 10 years to develop flights and maintain their reputation? After all, even in the USA themselves there are a lot of skeptics.

    What for? Just to throw money down the drain? The point in such flights? The exact same question could be asked to us. And why for all these 40 years WE did not fly to the moon?
    A question that they try not to discuss. The Apollo program has been implemented. True, not completely. Originally planned two more flights. But there was no point in repeating the same thing again. In addition, they completed their maximum program set by Kennedy. Further continuation was impractical including and from a financial point of view. Do not forget that in those years, the United States got bogged down in Vietnam. Therefore, the development of promising projects, such as an orbital station in orbit of the Earth for 40-50 people, an orbital station in lunar orbit - all these expensive projects have been canceled. We stopped at the Shuttles.
    And how do you see the described situation, once every 10 years fly to the moon to maintain a reputation? Throw away $ 100 billion, if not more, in order to carry out 40 “duty” flights in 4 years? Well, Americans are not so crazy as to throw out billions.
    And there are enough skeptics everywhere. People are always greedy for the sensation of conspiracy theorists. They trust them more than the same scientists ... And, moreover, this is both with us and with them.
    1. Comrade Stalin
      Comrade Stalin 24 December 2016 13: 06 New
      +3
      Oh!
      Quote: Old26
      What for? Just to throw money down the drain? The point in such flights? The exact same question could be asked to us. And why didn’t we fly to the moon for all these 40 years?

      Flying to the moon and back is simply technically impossible. Well, of course, you can fly in one direction. But here it is absolutely impossible to return from the moon. Where did you see the same cosmodrome as on Baikonur or Canaveral on the Moon?
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 24 December 2016 13: 56 New
        +3
        According to your logic, it is impossible to deliver soil from the moon with the help of AMS - there is no Tyur-tam there.
      2. AUL
        AUL 24 December 2016 21: 03 New
        +3
        Comrade Stalin
        Flying to the moon and back is simply technically impossible. Well, of course, you can fly in one direction. But here it is absolutely impossible to return from the moon. Where did you see the same cosmodrome as on Baikonur or Canaveral on the Moon?

        Very peremptory statement! The only pity is the unreasoned. Please, give any calculations, calculations, justifications. Well, for peace of mind.
        That there are no cosmodromes on the moon - I believe without evidence!
        1. Comrade Stalin
          Comrade Stalin 24 December 2016 21: 12 New
          0
          OK. So why then spend billions of rubles and dollars on the construction of cosmodromes in Baikonur, Plesetsk and Canaverele, since, according to your logic, a rocket can take off from any unfinished surface? Can you explain to me? Or are the engineers of the Design Bureau of the USSR and the USA stupider than you?
          1. AUL
            AUL 24 December 2016 22: 11 New
            +5
            1. About any unfinished surface - this is your speculation, do not ascribe them to me, pliz!
            2. I’ll tell you a secret that it’s a little easier to take off from the Moon than from Earth. The force of gravity, the acceleration of gravity there is 6 times less than on earth. You will not believe it, but it is! Yes, and air resistance does not interfere. Therefore, aligning the launch pad (God knows what a difficult task is for a small apparatus in low gravity conditions), why not bring the returned module to the trajectory home? The power-to-power ratio is enough, they would not have let down the control system! So do not compare the start from the Earth and the start from the moon.
            3. About calculations, calculations and technical justifications, as I understand it, is it useless to speak with you?
            4. I am not going to measure my mind and other bodies with the engineers of the USSR and the USA. Moreover, they were able to return the devices from the Moon to Earth. And the theses you quoted do not constitute any evidence - emotions and distortion.
            1. tolancop
              tolancop 30 December 2016 01: 16 New
              0
              "... 2. I’ll tell you a secret that it’s a little easier to take off from the Moon than from Earth. The force of gravity, the acceleration of gravity there are 6 times less than on earth. You will not believe it, but it is so! Yes, and even the resistance therefore, aligning the launch pad (God knows what a difficult task it is for a small apparatus in low gravity conditions), why not bring the returned module to the trajectory home? Power supply is enough, would not let the control system down! So do not compare the start from Earth and start from the moon ... "

              I’ll also tell you a secret (only to anyone !!!): The launch of any object at the cosmodrome is ensured by the work of several THOUSAND specialists. And some, which is typical, as some unconscious elements slander, creep along the launch object almost crawling, checking that ...
          2. JonnyT
            JonnyT 13 June 2017 12: 48 New
            0
            Quote: Comrade_Stalin
            So why then spend billions of rubles and dollars on the construction of cosmodromes in Baikonur, Plesetsk and Canaverele, since, according to your logic, a rocket can take off from any unfinished surface? Can you explain to me? Or are the engineers of the Design Bureau of the USSR and the USA stupider than you?


            Coincidence? No I do not think so)))
      3. Bayonet
        Bayonet 25 December 2016 06: 05 New
        +3
        Quote: Comrade_Stalin
        Flying to the moon and back is simply technically impossible.

        It is symbolic that a person with such a nickname writes like that!
      4. Uralsky
        Uralsky 30 March 2017 22: 16 New
        0
        Quote: Comrade_Stalin
        Flying to the moon and back is simply technically impossible.

        but the USSR did it perfectly.
    2. avaks111
      avaks111 28 March 2017 07: 22 New
      0
      And where is it written about the unsuccessful launch of the Proton with the crew to the moon? And who was on the carriage?
  8. Old26
    Old26 24 December 2016 13: 23 New
    +6
    Quote: Comrade_Stalin
    Flying to the moon and back is simply technically impossible. Well, of course, you can fly in one direction. But here it is absolutely impossible to return from the moon. Where did you see the same cosmodrome as on Baikonur or Canaveral on the Moon?

    Well, you are talking nonsense !!!! How much physics did you have at school? A solid triple, or was it pulled to a triple?
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 24 December 2016 14: 23 New
      +2
      This is a humanitarian.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 25 December 2016 06: 07 New
        +2
        Quote: Aviator_
        This is a humanitarian.

        There it does not smell! lol
    2. Dekabrist
      Dekabrist 24 December 2016 15: 08 New
      +3
      Any idea, before voicing, must be considered.
      Although there are people who believe in great nonsense. Even though the Earth is flat. The keyboard is on its side. Drum yourself on the keys. And it was difficult for them to stray into flocks before. And now communications contribute to the spread of not only the flu virus, but also stupidity.
      The main thing is not to be aggressive. Then the trouble.
    3. Comrade Stalin
      Comrade Stalin 24 December 2016 18: 59 New
      0
      Here you are like "Old", but naive as a child :)))). Why do you so naively think that if special complexes for launching like Baikonur or Canaveral are needed on Earth, then how can ships already take off from the Moon to the Earth? !!!
      1. Dekabrist
        Dekabrist 24 December 2016 19: 24 New
        +7
        I naively do not think, I naively know the purpose of the elements of the launch complex,
        I also naively know what the first and second cosmic velocity (the third is not needed here) are the physical characteristics of the planets and their satellites, the mass of the cargo put into orbit, the Homan trajectories, the special task of flying around the moon ...
        In short, a lot more. Already scary.
        Once you know this, the veil of ignorance will fall and a new world will open before you. Go ahead.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Dekabrist
            Dekabrist 24 December 2016 19: 44 New
            +6
            Still aggressive. Hopelessly
            1. Comrade Stalin
              Comrade Stalin 24 December 2016 19: 53 New
              0
              You at least change your blue-yellow rag, garter for downs, on ava change.
              1. Dekabrist
                Dekabrist 24 December 2016 22: 13 New
                +6
                If you are a forum visitor and met a troll on it, then the best thing you can do is ignore it.
                1. AUL
                  AUL 24 December 2016 22: 24 New
                  +4
                  When there is nothing to say in essence - begins to be rude. True, it does not become more convincing from this.
                  But what a proud nickname! Actually - such a nickname must be earned yet, but not everyone understands this!
          2. aviator65
            aviator65 24 December 2016 23: 02 New
            +3
            Comrade C! Do you really sincerely believe in the nonsense that you are carrying or making fun of? Or have you been taught anything more than being rude at school?
  9. shamil
    shamil 24 December 2016 14: 39 New
    +1
    "Old26" is quite old! Y. Mukhina remembers, but clearly is not familiar with Phil Kutz. I advise you to read.
    1. shamil
      shamil 24 December 2016 14: 44 New
      +3
      I mean, for the last 20 years, the USA, as you suppose, has really thrown money into the wind - the Orion program.
      http://ffke1975.narod.ru/s/s8/s84/moon_base-3.htm
  10. shamil
    shamil 24 December 2016 15: 18 New
    +1
    Flying to the moon is possible only with automatic weapons and robots. So a man will come to work early in the morning. He will put on a helmet and enter the virtual moon world. He will work shift and go home to his wife and children. Otherwise, nothing. Radiation can not be avoided and you will not hide from it.
  11. Glory1974
    Glory1974 24 December 2016 16: 08 New
    +5
    The fact that the Americans did not fly to the moon is primarily said by the Americans themselves. Mukhin writes on American materials. Considering how much they lie, remembering Cole with a test tube, I am ready to believe that they did not fly to the moon.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 25 December 2016 13: 25 New
      0
      The fact that the United States was not on the moon is indicated only by the forgotten Hollywood directors, who suddenly needed money for old age. And on matters of faith, contact the appropriate institution (church, church, mosque, synagogue).
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 26 December 2016 11: 34 New
        +1
        We are all believers. I believe that there is a god. You probably believe that there is no god.
        1. Uralsky
          Uralsky 30 March 2017 22: 18 New
          0
          Somehow weakly believe, since God is writing with a small letter. It is very likely that you did not read the Bible.
  12. Old26
    Old26 24 December 2016 20: 27 New
    +7
    Quote: Comrade_Stalin
    Here you are like "Old", but naive as a child :)))). Why do you so naively think that if special complexes for launching like Baikonur or Canaveral are needed on Earth, then how can ships already take off from the Moon to the Earth? !!!

    Of course I am naive, unlike you, Comrade Stalin. 20 years in this area - produces exclusively naivety. Only now, naive, unlike you, I know how many times the gravity on the Moon is less than on Earth. How many times the first cosmic velocity and the second cosmic velocity on the Moon are less than on Earth. (I hope that you have heard this out of the corner of your ear at school). Therefore, I know perfectly well what engine thrusts are needed in order to start from the Moon and go to Earth. And you, UNAWFUL OUR continue to believe that to launch from the moon you need the same spaceports and carriers as on Earth. But it’s better not to make people laugh with such posts ....

    Quote: shamil
    "Old26" is quite old! Y. Mukhina remembers, but clearly is not familiar with Phil Kutz. I advise you to read.

    And he read, and EMNIP Pavlova, also a major specialist in optics and an ardent supporter of the theory of Mukhin. And best of all, read Shuneiko. His third volume is the Rocket Engineering series. According to these textbooks, more than one generation of specialists in the field of cosmonautics is taught in our country ...

    Quote: Comrade_Stalin
    Then go to the experts in Florida and show how to launch missiles from Canaveral without supporting farms. Even planes cannot take off without ground-based infrastructure, and here you are chasing me about how American rockets easily land and take off from the surface of the moon like a taxi.

    You will be terribly surprised, it will probably be a discovery for you, but all the missiles are launched without "supporting their farms". Farms are needed for the period of service, no more. And in the same way they took off without supporting farms from the Moon and the Apollo, and our "Moon" with soil. So do not show your ignorance ...

    Quote: shamil
    Flying to the moon is possible only with automatic weapons and robots. So a man will come to work early in the morning. He will put on a helmet and enter the virtual moon world. He will work shift and go home to his wife and children. Otherwise, nothing. Radiation can not be avoided and you will not hide from it.

    Yeah. And how do they "bypass" radiation on the ISS? Or what, on modern ships and stations there is no radiation protection? Oh well

    Quote: glory1974
    The fact that the Americans did not fly to the moon is primarily said by the Americans themselves. Mukhin writes on American materials. Considering how much they lie, remembering Cole with a test tube, I am ready to believe that they did not fly to the moon.

    What Mukhin and his associate Pavlov writes is outright nonsense. Read Pavlov, especially his chapter on the launch of Saturn 5. Just my advice, do not read in the evening when your loved ones will sleep. Wake them up with your laughter ....

    And answer me only two questions.
    1. Where did the Americans come from?
    2. Where are the corner reflectors on the moon, and in places where there were no landings of American guns?

    We will not consider the casing and instruments of one of the Surveyor stations.
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 24 December 2016 21: 34 New
      +2
      Do Not Tag Beads (Scripture Quote). In the midst of the publications of Mukha’s nonsense about the absence of facts of Americans being on the moon (late 90-s), he personally presented him with the huge volume “Lunar soil from the Sea of ​​Plenty” (circulation of all 200 copies, it seems). There, not only about the features of the lunar soil (regolith), but also the results of a comparative analysis of American samples and ours. And Mukhin - all God's dew, this Kazakhstani refugee who settled in Moscow - the main thing is to be the boss of something: either the newspaper, or the People’s Will Army, or something else to control. But how well he started with his "Katyn Detective" (about Polish corpses with holes from German weapons in the gentry heads in Katyn)! But the man is weak.
    2. shamil
      shamil 25 December 2016 19: 25 New
      +1
      1. So about F. Kutz. If you read, then tell me about the following. From one of his articles:
      “NASA released a seven-minute international award-winning video clip in which a NASA specialist acknowledges that astronauts cannot safely cross Van Alen’s belts [Trial By Fire, 2014]. Near the three-minute mark, he says:
      03:00: “As we move farther away from the Earth, we will cross the Van Alen belts, an area of ​​hazardous radiation.”
      03:11: “Such radiation may interfere with the operation of the control system, on-board computers and other electronics on board Orion.”
      03:18: “Naturally, we must go through this danger zone twice: there and back.”
      03:26: “But Orion has a defense. Shielding will be tested when the spacecraft crosses radiation waves. Sensors on board will record radiation levels for scientists. ”
      03:36: “We must solve these problems before we send a person through this area of ​​outer space.”
      But wait, weren’t all these problems definitely resolved when NASA sent astronauts many times through this area of ​​space more than 45 years ago? "
      2. Kilograms of American lunar soil lost to humanity (and there were none!). I remember Markin trolling NASA when he asked them to ask the Russian Investigative Committee to join in his search.
      3. Corner reflectors prove nothing. If they are, they were delivered by machine guns. Secretly or explicitly.
      4. Today, after all the attempts with the Orion project, NASA announced the need to forget about the Moon and fall on Mars. This is the real level of their space achievements in the field of budget cuts (since the 60s)
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. shamil
      shamil 25 December 2016 22: 16 New
      +2
      Puncture comrade! 20 years in this area speak? And do not know the fundamental difference between the ISS and the lunar expedition in terms of radiation ??? Is it possible?
    5. shamil
      shamil 26 December 2016 06: 45 New
      0
      Who is Pavlov? Give me a link please. I will laugh as you promised.
  13. Old26
    Old26 24 December 2016 21: 48 New
    +4
    Quote: Aviator_
    In the midst of the publications of Mukhinsky delirium about the absence of facts of Americans staying on the Moon (late 90s), he personally presented him with the huge volume "Lunar soil from the Sea of ​​Plenty" (circulation of only 200 copies, it seems). There, not only about the features of the lunar soil (regolith), but also the results of a comparative analysis of American samples and ours.

    Eh, the Aviator. Aviator!!! Found to give! I "flew past" this edition. EMNIP this GEOCHEMian monograph was published either in 73, or in 75
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 25 December 2016 12: 42 New
      +1
      1973 seems to be a year, but not sure. After all, I was under the impression of “Katyn Detective” thought that Mukhin was sincerely mistaken, he wanted to explain the situation to him, and then he also hit me on this subject in one of his books.
  14. Old26
    Old26 24 December 2016 22: 04 New
    +5
    Quote: Aviator_
    But how well he started with his "Katyn Detective" (about Polish corpses with holes from German weapons in the gentry heads in Katyn)! But the man is weak.

    I once wondered how much he had published his investigative books. it turned out that over about a quarter of a century more than 80. That is, more than THREE books a year. A good "investigation", for our law enforcement agencies to investigate as fast as he is investigating.
    And omnivorous. He knows who killed Stalin, who rammed the twin towers, he knows everything about the dark deeds of marshals and generals of the Great Patriotic War, that Lysenko was right in everything, and everyone else ... Now it seems like a trial will be held the other day. Judged for Extremism
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 25 December 2016 12: 47 New
      0
      Well, which extremist from Mukhin? They are being tried for his Manilovsky “AVN”, from which no one is cold or hot. Just to reconcile with him the personal accounts of one of the current big people. Well, sort of like, Kvachkov - spoke out a couple of times about Chubais, and he still sits. With Mukhin, in my opinion, the same thing.
  15. Old26
    Old26 25 December 2016 13: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Aviator_
    Well, which extremist from Mukhin? They are being tried for his Manilovsky “AVN”, from which no one is cold or hot. Just to reconcile with him the personal accounts of one of the current big people. Well, sort of like, Kvachkov - spoke out a couple of times about Chubais, and he still sits. With Mukhin, in my opinion, the same thing.

    Maybe. Most likely for the statements. After all, we have a law such that it is possible to turn as the customer wishes
  16. bbtcs
    bbtcs 26 December 2016 00: 03 New
    +1
    It is sad, very sad that the discussion from propaganda of the achievements of astronautics is slipping into all kinds of nonsense. Postmodernism and obscurantism triumph. But note, the unnecessary manned flights are sure of many and not only the "Stalin", but also the current bosses, on whom funding depends.
    1. shamil
      shamil 26 December 2016 05: 42 New
      0
      This is a sober view that it is impossible for a person to be outside the low orbit of the Earth. Therefore, only flights by automatic stations or under the control of people from Earth are real. Sadly different. I don’t understand the desire to live with the myths that we have been stuffed with since childhood. And I understand the scientists. All programs of the “500 days” type are also useful for use on Earth. And space technology must evolve.
    2. shamil
      shamil 26 December 2016 06: 38 New
      0
      In man on earth, affairs are higher than the roof. The ocean is 5% studied, planes are falling, normal life is inaccessible to billion people.
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 26 December 2016 08: 10 New
        0
        Since ancient times, people have raised their heads and looked at the sky, asking questions. Why should people give up knowledge now? Many space explorations have come in handy on the earth, this is part of the military program. Even India sent its satellite. But in fact, not everyone has sewage in India. ....
        You can’t limit yourself only to your apartment in space or on Earth.,
        We observe how countries take care of democracy among their neighbors, but they could restore order
  17. Old26
    Old26 29 December 2016 08: 19 New
    0
    Quote: shamil
    In man on earth, affairs are higher than the roof. The ocean is 5% studied, planes are falling, normal life is inaccessible to billion people.

    Cosmonautics is such an industry that if you “score” it for a while, you can be left behind forever.
    And there are always things on Earth. Either the study of the ocean, the problem of drinking water and food, then the onset of deserts. A decision must be made. Either you are a cosmic power and must correspond, or sit quietly in a corner and watch how less developed countries do it
  18. Old26
    Old26 30 December 2016 08: 19 New
    0
    Quote: tolancop
    "... Maybe it’s enough to once again conspire Mukhin’s conspiracy theories? Did we get a grudge from the Americans? We got it. Where did it come from? Where are the corner reflectors on the moon in places where American machine guns didn’t land? It’s easiest and most convenient to stick to Mukhin’s version, even if she’s contrary to reality ... "
    You criticize Mukhina with enthusiasm, but it seems that reading his materials did not come down as necessary. He also wrote about corner reflectors about where the "lunar" soil came from. By the way, Mukhin wrote VERY MUCH about the ground. "..I did not read, but I condemn !! .." ???

    I read it, and not only him, but also his colleague, Pavlov. so your passage is by. His "proof" of how lunar soil appeared and how angular reflectors of those working in this industry causes laughter. . You count it and understand that from his point of view all the science of the USSR was corrupt, they only dreamed of covering up, as he says, the "moon scam" of the Americans.
  19. Old26
    Old26 30 December 2016 08: 29 New
    0
    Quote: tolancop
    I’ll also tell you a secret (only to anyone !!!): The launch of any object at the cosmodrome is ensured by the work of several THOUSAND specialists. And some, which is typical, as some unconscious elements slander, creep along the launch object almost crawling, checking that ...

    Depending on the stage. Starting from several thousand and sometimes ending in tens. Support - this is the assembly of the carrier in the MIK, and docking to it a satellite (ship), tens and hundreds of checks, and ensuring the work of the crew at training complexes, in the end it is the work of the gas station service, exact time, transport and hundreds and hundreds of people from ten services. The apotheosis is the start.
    But at the same time, no one claims, except for individuals, such as comrade Stalinthat to start from the planet (Moon, Mars) the same cosmodromes and a huge number of people are needed. The landing stage serves as a launch site, and the returning rocket at that stage is already in a state of readiness. Yes, launching from different planets will require rockets of various capacities, but the delivery of soil from the Moon or from Mars does not make much difference from the point of view of technology. Both there and there will be a landing stage as a spaceport. If from the moon we managed a returning rocket weighing 518 kg, which had an engine thrust of 1,8 tons and a payload (descent vehicle) weighing 32 kg, then from Mars the scheme will be approximately the same (a little more technical), but no more. The rocket will be bigger, the engines more powerful - and that’s it. The rest is a matter of technology and managers
  20. mister-red
    mister-red 30 December 2016 10: 39 New
    +2
    Quote: Old26
    The launch of our manned Vostok with Yuri Alekseevich - April 12, their Mercury Redstone-3 (Freedom-7) with Alan Shepard - May 5, 1961. As you can see, the terms are small.

    Well, if we consider suborbital flight equal to orbital, then of course it is. But the Americans made an orbital flight only in 1962.
  21. Old26
    Old26 30 December 2016 18: 43 New
    0
    Quote: mister-red
    Quote: Old26
    The launch of our manned Vostok with Yuri Alekseevich - April 12, their Mercury Redstone-3 (Freedom-7) with Alan Shepard - May 5, 1961. As you can see, the terms are small.

    Well, if we consider suborbital flight equal to orbital, then of course it is. But the Americans made an orbital flight only in 1962.

    And no one denies this. the conversation was that the Americans went head to head with us. And as an example, flights of Gagarin and Shepard. Yes, Shepard’s flight was suborbital, but it was space, whether we like it or not. Imagine for one minute that our carrier would fail and Yuri Alekseevich’s flight would be delayed for a month and the first to make Shepard’s suborbital space flight. You think someone would be interested that the flight is suborbital. He would FIRST SPACE. The first American orbital was indeed in 1962, on February 20, on Mercury 6. (John Glenn).
    So the Americans laid down the map that a more powerful missile was not sufficiently developed at the beginning of 1961. Yes, and our risk was very high. Gagarin flew after two successful flights of "satellite ships", but nevertheless the FAI registered the first two American suborbital flights as space. The Americans had 2 more interesting flights. In July and August 1963, Joseph Walker twice ascended into space on an X-15 rocket aircraft, reaching a height of 106 and 107 km.
  22. Old26
    Old26 30 December 2016 19: 20 New
    0
    Quote: shamil
    Puncture comrade! 20 years in this area speak? And do not know the fundamental difference between the ISS and the lunar expedition in terms of radiation ??? Is it possible?

    I know. And I know that in this area for more than 40 years there has been progress. Do not forget that radiation belts are not something that cannot be overcome with a minimum of radiation protection for the ship. Even in the 60s.

    As for the book, I can’t give the link, but if I reset my email address in a personal account, I’ll drop the book. But after NG. I have it in the archive, you just need to find it.
    Pay attention to it, how this Pavlov describes the next "gamble" of the USA, namely the "transformation" of the existing "Saturn-1B" into the "nonexistent in his opinion" Saturn-5 "with the help of an aluminum sheet 5 mm thick and about 75 in size 30 meters This is a masterpiece.

    By the way, about 3-4 years ago, a monograph (work) published by us on a manned flight to Mars was posted on the Roskosmos website. The subject of protection against cosmic radiation there has been worked out very well.

    Quote: shamil
    I mean, for the last 20 years, the USA, as you suppose, has really thrown money into the wind - the Orion program.

    The fact that the Orion program and the Constellation carriers did not appear among the Americans, we should be grateful to our "best friend," best friend peony ... sorry, astronates Barack Huseynovich Obama. It was he who almost at the very beginning of his first term put a bold cross on this program. . So to compare the "money down the drain" thrown into this program (although the achievements are all used in the new SLS media) and the offer Comrade Stalinthat the Americans would have to fly to the moon at least once every 10 years (that's where the money would really be thrown out) - these are still 2 big differences. To understand at least the logic of the actions of Americans at the level of the 70s - 80s, it is necessary to consider their space projects, not forgetting that the country also waged a war
  23. Zloy
    Zloy 6 March 2017 20: 44 New
    0
    About the ground:
    According to the American lunar legend, according to the results of all flights, American astronauts spent almost 300 hours on the Moon, 81 hours out of them on the surface of the Moon, and delivered 384,2 kg of lunar soil from there.
    Where is the 400 kg?
    Only 3,2 grams of Soviet lunar soil transferred to the United States were distributed throughout the United States - these grams were studied not only in Houston (NASA center), but also in the universities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Princeton, and the University of Berkeley , at various research laboratories, institutes and universities in Arizona, New Mexico, Minnesota, Newark, Oregon, Missouri, etc.

    It is simply amazing how American scientists divided about 2 cm3 of soil among themselves, in order to write: “1300 microprobe analyzes of glasses, pyroxenes, feldspars were made ...” ** (Houston) or: “We classified 2380 crystalline and vitreous particles of zones A and D from a sample of the Moon 16 soil column 35 (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, Massachusetts).

    The French did exactly the same. I do not know how much soil was sent to them from the USSR (one scientist mentions 0,5 g), but they also distributed the soil of “Moon-16” throughout France. His research centers were studied not only in Paris, but also in Orleans, Orsay, Zhiv-sur-Yvette and Toulouse.

    In the USSR, everything happened exactly the opposite - almost all studies of even the Soviet lunar soil were carried out in Moscow. Not only peripheral scientific institutions, but even the Novosibirsk branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences from the delivered by “Moon-16” 100 grams did not receive a milligram for research. To be completely accurate, then out of 51 studies by Soviet scientists, 4 were conducted by scientists from Leningrad University and the Institute named after Ioffe, one study was conducted by scientists from the Kharkov Observatory and three with the involvement of scientists from the Sverdlovsk Polytechnic. The remaining 43 - in Moscow, mainly at the Institute of Geochemistry. Vernadsky. Americans distributed 3 grams among all, and we have almost all 100 grams left in Moscow.
  24. Zloy
    Zloy 6 March 2017 20: 45 New
    0
    Dear Old

    You then need to know that the ISS is protected by the Earth's magnetic field. Van Allen's belts are farther.
  25. Zloy
    Zloy 6 March 2017 20: 54 New
    +2
    Regarding Reflectors
    Not Apollo 11, but the automatic Surveyor X, sat on the moon?
    In 1963, the chances of success of landing people on the moon were seen in pink, and NASA really considered the Surveyors as scouts for the landing sites of the upcoming Apollo. This confidence is reflected in the 1963 statement. But in 1969, NASA, apparently, was already on the path of mystification. In July 1969, after the launch of Apollo 11, apparently, the “landing” was to be played for the first time.
    And much becomes clear if a ship, not controlled by astronauts, flew to a meeting with Surveyor-5, but a new automatic machine. Let's call it conditionally Surveyor-X. And he sat on the moon not in July 1969, but ahead of time. At least 1,5 months before the planned “launch to the moon” of Apollo 11, after which the first message was published about the change in NASA's view of the Surveyors. And, perhaps, earlier - in January of the same year to which B. Milvitsky’s statement is related.
    If the new device sat next to the Surveyor 5, then the previous line (Surveyors - Apollon scouts) would not be affected. Indeed, see how everything goes well in this case.
    After the Moon Surveyor X, NASA is convinced of its exact landing using the laser location of the reflector. This mission could, in particular, be carried out by the University of California Lick Observatory. It also checks the availability of radio communications with the new messenger and the operability of all its systems and devices. All the rest of humanity will not know about this preparation. Indeed, it is practically impossible to intercept the “test” radio exchange between Surveyor-X and the Earth, not knowing at least approximately its time and the exact frequency of the transmissions. The alien observer that appears on the moon will also not detect the alien observer until NASA so desires it. The fact is that in order to detect a reflector, it must be illuminated from the Earth by a powerful and necessarily narrow laser beam (otherwise there will not be enough power). A narrow beam illuminates only about one millionth of the lunar disk, so the probability of getting into the reflector, shooting at random, is very small. It’s the same as looking for mushrooms in the forest by touch with blindfolds. And so the delivered reflector can “wait” for as many hours as it needs to be announced by NASA.
    In a timely manner, humanity is notified of the first launch to the moon (with a landing!), And at the cosmodrome in front of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of witnesses, the enchanting launch of the Apollo 11 rocket is carried out. True, it is accompanied by a complete radio jamming of Soviet intelligence ships (chapter 20), trying to track where this missile actually flew. But mankind does not know about this nuance.
    Three days later, laid on a flight to the moon, NASA will report that astronauts landed on the moon next to the old "Surveyor No. 5," long standing on the moon. And he will publish the exact coordinates of the landing site, almost coinciding with the long-published coordinates of the landing site of Surveyor-5. That is, everything, as NASA promised back in 1963, is “so that the final selection of possible places of landing (Apollo) is made according to the results of the Surveyor program ...”. NASA announces that, among other things, astronauts have installed a laser reflector. Those who have the technical capabilities can shoot a laser beam at a specified location and make sure that this reflector is in the reflected beam. And to whom, to the thunder of triumphant reports of all the Western media, the idea will come to mind that the reflector was on the moon without any participation of astronauts? (Where could the astronauts actually be at that time?). In the case of the exact landing of the new machine, one could "organize" the astronaut A-11's walk to Surveyor-5. The “meeting” itself would have been shot in the studio, but the proof of its “authenticity” would have been the reflections of a reflector lying not far from Surveyor-5.
    Here, in order for the whole stage to go exactly that way, the new machine gun flew to the moon long before the start of the A-11. He was supposed to enter the equatorial orbit around the moon, sit near the Surveyor 5 and deliver the instruments and the laser reflector.
    But the new envoy sat for sure in longitude, and deviated by 30 km in latitude. For the machine, it is excusable. So, in 1964, “Ranger-7” hit the moon 20 km from the intended point, “Ranger-9” in 1965 - 6 km. Apparently, directing the "Surveyor-X" to the seat of the "Surveyor-5", NASA experts expected to increase accuracy, but a 30 km miss came out. Now the previously announced strategy (Surveyors - Apollo scouts) did not work. And then the NASA statement of June 3, 1969 appeared, as the first touchstone, and after it, as the final “cross” on the “scouts,” the schedule of July 26.
  26. Zloy
    Zloy 6 March 2017 20: 59 New
    +2
    And finally, what are you attached to Mukhin? To immediately put a label - "nonsense from Mukhin." The question is then raised by dozens of researchers, primarily American. By and large I do not care whether the Americans were on the moon or not. But, as they say, scouts, if there are more than 2 matches, this is no longer a coincidence. There are too many arguments for not being there, than for being there. All points on E will be set by a lunar expedition, which will demonstrate the Apollo landing sites in the required resolution.
  27. Waran
    Waran 17 May 2017 12: 37 New
    0
    Here's about NASA’s modern programs:
    https://cont.ws/@nikkuro/289139
  28. JonnyT
    JonnyT 13 June 2017 12: 30 New
    0
    since such a topic has gone, here's a vidos from unbelieving Americans
  29. The comment was deleted.